carstenw wrote:
Recent number from ProfiFoto magazine in Germany shows their XE-1 to be slightly ahead of their NEX-6 in resolution, but the difference in minimal. I think for all practical purposes these cameras are competing in the same resolution ballpark.

I haven't seen the magazine, but it doesn't surprise me, if they were shooting test targets. When looking at entire scenes, even using RPP, there are areas where the XE-1 resolution seems to fall behind the Sony 16mp sensor. I'd probably call it a draw, more or less, from what I've seen.

So is the general consensus that the Sony 24MP sensor is superior to the 16MP Fuji sensor? I was starting to believe the Fuji had some advantages due to the lack of an AA filter, excellent high ISO performance, a DR mode and very good color depth. I know those attributes are probably not enough to overcome 24MPs... It puzzles me why DXO hasn't evaluated the sensor yet...

I feel the same regarding Fuji X versus Sony NEX... Fuji fails to show similar details and structure... Also OM-D shows better resolutin in RPP.
Don't know if a better RAW processor is possible for Fuji to show more...

Good examples are the RAWs from dpreview - look at the few words there... Fuji is by far the looser there... The only one APS-C cam which betters OM-D, NEX6+7 is the Pentax K5IIS without AA filter...

@ ddjohns,In order to change the focus point, you need to press the AF button with your left hand then change the focus point using the 4 point selector with your right hand and then confirm AF point change by pressing the AF button with your left hand again.
The last step's not necessary; once that AF is where you want it, a half-press of the shutter sets it. I find it pretty fast in use (though not as fast as the GH2's touch screen method).

And now that Capture Pro 7 handles the X-Trans files (and beautifully, too) the X-E1 is, for me, the best of the mirrorless (and I owned both the OM-D, and the Nex 5N and 7).

And on another thread here, I posted some comparisons of images made by the DP2 Merrill and the X-E1—both make superb detailed images. I am not a pixel peeper usually, but I have not seen evidence of the alleged shortcomings of the X-Trans sensor. For me, the technical shortcomings of digital sensors in relation to being able to make images that I and my customers like were overcome a generation or two ago. All are good enough now, IMHO.

This is why I chose the X-E1: best ergonomics of all, and superb native lenses.

Having recently acquired an X-E1, I may agree that the X-E1 has the best image quality of the mirrorless cams. I've been very impressed at how clean the files are even up to ISO 1600, and usable easily at 6400 (and with well exposed 12,800 too).

However, I don't think I'd classify it as best of the mirrorless, simply because in dim light, the AF struggles quite a bit, in situations where my OM-D or the NEX would lock instantly. I'm going to be using the X-E1 for a 'different look' sort of camera, mainly in situations where I can be deliberate. The image quality is excellent, I really like the control layout, the EVF is the best on any camera I've tried, but the AF limits its use as an all-around camera for me. I'd much rather use the OM-D in most situations, but the X-E1 will get a fair amount of use when in good light and when using it for things it excels at. The 35/1.4 is an excellent lens, with a beautiful rendering (though it's not quite as good overall as the PL 25/1.4). I may get the 14/2.8 eventually, and pair it with my Rokinon 85/1.4 as a three lens supplementary kit to my m4/3 gear, but we'll see. For now, I'm just liking it as a nice change of pace with a little different look to what I get with m4/3.

I could see the Fuji X series becoming the killer mirrorless system in a few years, though. Their lens roadmap is outstanding...filling out a high quality full system rather quickly, with no boring crap lenses taking up space. The image quality is great and the cameras feel great in the hand. Fix the AF and a few other things and it'll be killer.

So is the general consensus that the Sony 24MP sensor is superior to the 16MP Fuji sensor?

The Fuji sensor is the same as the 16Mp Sony 5N one (eg. the hardware pinouts are identical), only with Fuji's X-trans filter replacing the Bayer which makes RAW support for post-processing much harder. Also Fuji inflate their ISO values.

Many here prefer the 16Mp sensor of the NEX 5n or 6 to the 24Mp of the NEX 7 because it doesn't have the corner issues with non-native lenses. I believe there are firmware updates that correct the NEX7 issues with native lenses like the 18/2.8 and 10-18 wide zoom.

Also SAR are reporting a new NEX 7 to be released soon if you wish to wait,

Jeff Kott wrote:
Interesting dichotomy with the X-E1. On the one hand you have the cleanest images at high ISO in poor light, on the other hand you have the worst autofocus in those conditions. Hmmmm

Yes indeed. If you have a contrasty subject and set the AF box to be a little larger, it's fine in dim light...but if you're going for precision on an eye, especially if the eye is in shadow, it struggles, and if you are shooting something low contrast in lower light, it struggles (basically, it will fail to autofocus).

In good light, and with high contrast subjects in dimmer light, the AF on the X-E1 is fine. Still not as fast as the OM-D or any recent Panasonic (and the NEX cams are faster as well).

I do miss IBIS with it, though, and I have noticed having to consciously use that higher ISO in situations I wouldn't have to raise ISO on the OM-D. Well exposed files are super clean, though. Essentially no noise up to ISO 800 and only very minor noise at 1600. 3200 and 6400 show some noise, but it's perfectly fine for most uses.

Jman wrote:The 35/1.4 is an excellent lens, with a beautiful rendering (though it's not quite as good overall as the PL 25/1.4).
I find the opposite, in this respect (I am comparing the 25/1.4 on the Panny GH2, and the 35/1.4 on the X-E1): the pixel level sharpness on the X-E1 I find to be sharper, and I assume that's due to the no-AA filter.

Both are really excellent lenses, though, and just sensational wide open and both have (for me) beautiful OOF characteristics. I have a variable ND filter that pretty much stays on the 25 for use outside.

Fuji: the 18-55mm f2.8-4.0 looks like the best of the reasonably priced normal zooms for mirrorless. (Yes, the Panny/Leica 12-35 is better but its out of my budget at $1,200.) The 14mm, 18mm, 35mm and future lens at 56mm look very good if wide primes are needed. For most of what I would do, I would probably stick to the zoom for most shooting based on what I've seen of the quality at all focal lengths.

Sony: They are lacking an affordable good quality wide prime (ex. 16mm.) The 10-18mm looks great although its costly and big. The 35mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8 look like very good affordable primes. They have OSS as well. But I can't find a decent normal native zoom for NEX. This is a big limitation I think, because for a travel camera it is important to have a good normal zoom. Based on the sensor (quality, resolution and DOF from APS-C) this is a strong camera, but not sure what I'd do for a normal lens, and if I went with a bag 'o primes instead, I'd be lacking a good native wide option.

Olympus: Very good affordable primes and zooms at all focal lengths. I still think the Fuji 18-55 is about ideal for mirrorless-- the olympus 12-50 kit lens seems a bit long and the aperture is small. If Olympus could convert the Zuiko 12-60 f2.8-4.0 to a size and mount for micro four thirds, that would be great. For me the Olympus and Pany 14-42/45 zooms would be OK but not great.

Lots of trade offs to consider! In other reading I've done, I have to say, there are so many negative comments about the autofocus on the fuji XE1 that I have to conclude it is truly a poor AF system. I don't understand how they could let this happen-- even basic P&S cameras have good AF these days... why would they stick a lousy AF system in a $1,000 camera?

ddjohns, others here will add their thoughts, but I do not find the AF slow on the X-E1. Slow compared to my D3s? Yes. 'Get in the way' slow? Not for me. I only use the primes (18, 35, 60). The 60 does occasionally go to sleep on the job, but simply re-aiming is enough (pan off very slightly; re-acquire). When I am using it as a macro, though, I go MF and use the truly excellent 10x (or 3x) magnification.

The Panasonic 14-45 can be had for less than $300 new and around $200 used, unless the Fuji 18-55 is vastly superior (photozone's Fuji sample has decentering issue), I would think the Panny at less than half the price (Fuji's at $700 I think is overpriced, like their $600 18/2) is a better choice.

In fact, if you compare the similar lens on slrgear: 25/1.4 vs 35/1.4, 14/2.5 vs 18/2, 60/2.8 vs 60/2.5 macro, they are all better on the m4/3 side. You are losing 2/3-1 stop of DOF control, but you will be gaining more back with IBIS (for static subject) and faster AF (for slowly moving subject). So, don't count the m4/3 out yet.

Aleksander, it's definitely not a format I have counted out; I use a Panny GH2 with a selection of Panny's and Oly's best primes daily, though mostly for video. but when I go on the road, I only take the Panasonic, because it can do very nice stills in addition, though overall I prefer the handling of the X-E1 and I prefer the look of the stills it makes. But as I said above, both are capable of making exquisite images.

And the price of that 14–45 is a steal, I agree. I think I shall have to get one...

Some comments on the NEX. The 35 and 50 are really excellent, better in my experience than their Nikon equivalents. The 18-55 zoom while not my favorite range is really a very good travel zoom, it's much sharper than most reviews lead you to believe. As an outdoor lens, you can stop it down and it's just as sharp as the primes. Indoors, you want the primes anyways. The same comment on the 16, if you stop it down to f5.6 or f8 it very sharp except for the most extreme corners. And using the automatic corrections in JPEG or processing in Lightroom it really gives excellent photos. The reviews say it's junk but that's an extreme overstatement. Also the new 16-50 power zoom is also much better than the reviews lead you to believe.

I would very much like something like the 16-80 zeiss zoom on the A-mount for the NEX. Rumors suggest something like that might happen later this year, but it's not there yet. I would not let this stop me, the 12-50 on the OM-D I think is a great kit lens because the range is perfect and the macro feature is handy. But I've had both and the 18-55 produces images just as sharp and colorful as the 12-50.

Bottom line is I think any of these will work for what you want. If you have not handled them in person, find a store where you can. Hold them and look through the viewfinders. Press the buttons. Listen to the shutter sound. You will probably then know which one is the best for you.

Kit Laughlin wrote:
ddjohns, others here will add their thoughts, but I do not find the AF slow on the X-E1. Slow compared to my D3s? Yes. 'Get in the way' slow? Not for me. I only use the primes (18, 35, 60). The 60 does occasionally go to sleep on the job, but simply re-aiming is enough (pan off very slightly; re-acquire). When I am using it as a macro, though, I go MF and use the truly excellent 10x (or 3x) magnification.

In good light, I think the X-E1's AF is plenty fast. Not as fast as newer m4/3 cams or NEX, but plenty fast enough for any work I'd need. In indoor lighting with contrasty subjects...again, no problem whatsoever. Compared to the absolutely abysmal focusing action and live view freezing of the X-Pro 1, it's a revelation.

The issue I've had is mainly in trying to focus on eyes under indoor lighting. Set the focus box to one of the smaller settings, and the camera often fails to find focus at all. Enlarge the box and you lose precision (and still sometimes it won't focus). I also find it has an issue in lower light when trying to focus on something significantly closer than its current focus setting...it tries the area around where it is currently focused and won't sweep through to MFD all the time to pick up the subject, and it gives up....if I then pre-focus on something closer to my subject that's really contrasty, then focus on my subject, it'll get it, but it can at times be infuriating. Plus, the 35/1.4's element extension focusing system means it's slower to focus than most lenses (and it's loud).

That said, I'm still really enjoying the camera. The images are beautiful and the camera is a joy to use. The EVF is outstanding. Simple and powerful controls. I really enjoy having it as a complementary system to my m4/3 kit, but the AF struggles do make it so that it can't replace my m4/3 kit any time soon. The current m4/3 cams are simply so responsive that I forget about the camera entirely, and I certainly can't say that with the Fuji. I'm looking forward to using it as a platform for my manual focus glass, though, as I think that's an area where the larger sensor does make more sense over micro 4/3. My 85/1.4 is a somewhat awkward medium-long telephoto on m4/3 rather than the essentially perfect long portrait prime it will be on APS-C (My adapter is in the mail).

ddjohns1 wrote:
Lots of trade offs to consider! In other reading I've done, I have to say, there are so many negative comments about the autofocus on the fuji XE1 that I have to conclude it is truly a poor AF system. I don't understand how they could let this happen-- even basic P&S cameras have good AF these days... why would they stick a lousy AF system in a $1,000 camera?

It is actually hard to get right. In a compact the lens elements being moved are of vanishingly small mass and so you can move them very fast which is a requirement for the CDAF usually used in live-view cameras. With an ILC system that means you have to design your lenses with CDAF in mind, and that is one thing Olympus and Panasonic have mostly been successful at so far.

As Jordan pointed out some of the Fuji lens designs have clearly thrown that design goal out the window with very high mass focusing groups. Now, if you have a really good PDAF system behind the lens (like in a higher end DSLR) then that is fine. But that isn't what Fuji has got. They've got a hybrid AF system and it seems like they were planning on leaning on it but it doesn't quite stand up. Based on their previous models coming out with very poor AF followed by significant improvements in firmware updates clearly they are still learning what they are doing.

System wise one can probably safely assume as time goes on Fuji AF will improve until it is no longer a liability. So if you can deal with the AF issues on the current body and have some faith the next one will do a much better job then the system in the long haul could be quite good. I like their lens road map and it has a very aggressive schedule to it. That was the past flaw with NEX, rolled out tons of bodies and few lenses (people joked it was an ICL system, you changed bodies onto the one lens in the system). Of course NEX has a decent and growing line up now, just took awhile to get there. Fuji wisely seems to be rushing on the lens development front.